Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Where Your Contribution Counts!
    eNewsletter
    Support Us!

Family Sues Mcdonald's Over Undisclosed Ingredient


Respira

Recommended Posts

Respira Apprentice

It seems we can't even trust the information on websites

Open Original Shared Link

FORT WORTH, Texas -- A North Texas family is suing McDonald's after it says the company lied about a product ingredient, NBC 5 reported.

The french fries that have made McDonald's famous are at the center of this lawsuit. The lawsuit filed in Tarrant County Thursday claims McDonald's used an ingredient that caused a customer to suffer an allergic reaction, and the victim accuses the restaurant of lying about the ingredient.

The family said they spent time looking for places with a gluten-free menu for their son and when they checked McDonald's Web site it listed the french fries and several other menu items as gluten-free.

Clay Jenkins, the family's attorney, said he believes McDonald's wasn't telling the truth.

"Their Web sites said, 'our products contain no gluten, it is safe for your children to eat this.' They touted their products as being gluten free, when in fact they had gluten, and the children suffered as a result of that," Jenkins said.

Jenkins said McDonald's later corrected its Web site, but not before three others listed in the lawsuit became sick.

Jenkins claims the parents took extra care to avoid an allergic reaction, and McDonald's didn't take enough precautions to prevent one.

"For people who are allergic, who actually go to you and inquire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



jennyj Collaborator

Some companies just do not get it. We did not choose to have allergies or intolerances and we don't want to be a pain in the butt when we ask questions about their products , we just do not want to get sick. You would think that they could be honest about their foods. I called a resturaunt once to see if they could accomodate my special dietary needs and they told me no but at least they were honest. Keep us updated on the case please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lisa Mentor

This is not good news for the Celiac Community.

If this law suit trend continues, you can look forward to no more gluten free menus in restaurants, no more gluten free labels on products and no more advancements in gluten free products. Look forward to more CYA statements that will leave you with doubt about what is consumable and what is not.

The fear of the almighty law suit will rob us of all the inroads we have made over the past several years.

McDonald's currently lists their fries as "containing gluten", WHICH HAS BEEN TESTED AS UNDETECTABLE AND SAFE FOR CELIACS TO CONSUME , as a CYA statement. It has often been recommended on this site, that consuming McD's fries is a personal choice.

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morrisun Newbie
This is not good news for the Celiac Community.

If this law suit trend continues, you can look forward to no more gluten free menus in restaurants, no more gluten free labels on products and no more advancements in gluten free products. Look forward to more CYA statements that will leave you with doubt about what is consumable and what is not.

The fear of the almighty law suite will rob us of all the inroads we have made over the past several years.

McDonald's currently lists their fries as "containing gluten", WHICH HAS BEEN TESTED AS UNDETECTABLE AND SAFE FOR CELIACS TO CONSUME , as a CYA statement. It has often been recommended on this site, that consuming McD's fries is a personal choice.

:(

I totally agree with you. I think as Celiacs, we need to bear the responsibility of choosing whether to risk eating out or not. There are so many variables that are totally out of our control when we eat out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lisa Mentor
I totally agree with you. I think as Celiacs, we need to bear the responsibility of choosing whether to risk eating out or not. There are so many variables that are totally out of our control when we eat out.

I also agree. Whenever I eat out in a restaurant, I take 100% responsibility for my health, what I choose to order and what I put in my mouth. The risk is mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim-n-VA Contributor

The five comments on that article on the website listed pretty much sums up the varying views on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jkmunchkin Rising Star
This is not good news for the Celiac Community.

If this law suit trend continues, you can look forward to no more gluten free menus in restaurants, no more gluten free labels on products and no more advancements in gluten free products. Look forward to more CYA statements that will leave you with doubt about what is consumable and what is not.

The fear of the almighty law suite will rob us of all the inroads we have made over the past several years.

McDonald's currently lists their fries as "containing gluten", WHICH HAS BEEN TESTED AS UNDETECTABLE AND SAFE FOR CELIACS TO CONSUME , as a CYA statement. It has often been recommended on this site, that consuming McD's fries is a personal choice.

:(

I also agree. Whenever I eat out in a restaurant, I take 100% responsibility for my health, what I choose to order and what I put in my mouth. The risk is mine.

Absolutely!!! It's sad that some people are just so money hungry and will do anything to make a buck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Lisa Mentor

Ooops....Forgot to say thank you Respira for this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dbmamaz Explorer

Look, from reading this board, it looks like the only foods which can be guarenteed to be 100% gluten-free are those which are grown, transported and processed in facilities which do not handle gluten. I agree that suing companies for CC makes it impossible for them to make any effort to support allergy-free eating. You cannot expect McDonalds to eliminate Cc or stop serving anything containing any possible allergen.

I agree, this only means more CYA statements and the only winners will be the lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tarnalberry Community Regular

I think we're likely dealing with a CC issue here, and to sue over that is ridiculous. If you are a celiac who knows that you have extreme reactions to even the most trace amounts of gluten, you have no space in your life for CC - and any place that has gluten in it has the possibility of CC. If you were extraordinarily allergic to peanuts (to the point where being in the same room with them causes an anaphylactic reaction), would you choose to dine at thai restaurants? You *know* that cuisine regularly uses peanuts (finely chopped, no less), giving a good chance that someone near you would have them. It wouldn't be the restaurant's fault that they serve peanuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
home-based-mom Contributor

It has been posted elsewhere that restaurants have a responsibility to serve safe food. They also have a responsibility to inform people of all ingredients in the food they serve, so people can make an informed decision about whether or not to eat the food served by the restaurant.

If I am reading this right, what McDonald's website says now is not what it said when the family checked. If I am reading this right, the family did look, and believed what was on the website. If the information was wrong, and the family ate there based on the information on the website, then McDonald's is at least partly responsible for whatever happened as a result of eating food the family was possibly mislead into believing was safe but apparently was not.

If the lawsuit is only asking for medical bills, attorney fees and mandated accurate information, then maybe it can serve as a good wake-up call to the restaurant industry about their responsibilities to their customers. If "other damages" turns out to be a few million dollars, then there is greed involved, and shame on the family. The lawsuit will indeed do more harm than good.

From what I understand about the fast-food industry, the goal is to squeeze as much profit out of as little labor and overhead as possible. Automation is their friend and special needs gum up the assembly line.

From my perspective, getting them to give us completely accurate information 100% of the time so we can make our own informed decisions is the only way we can both live in a world obsessed with things we cannot eat and still be responsible for making safe and healthy choices for ourselves.

It's a shame if companies are allowed to post inaccurate information without consequence. It leaves us to wonder who is being truthful and who is not. Which company is "on the ball" and which company can't be bothered. Which company makes customer safety a priority and which company assigns this sort of thing to somebody who is already over-burdened with responsibilities due to downsizing.

Hopefully the end result will be that the industry as a whole takes more seriously that processed foods cannot be tolerated by a growing number of people, and the industry needs to provide everyone with accurate and up-to-date information. If I am reading the gist of the lawsuit right, that is all the family was initially looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dbmamaz Explorer
Hopefully the end result will be that the industry as a whole takes more seriously that processed foods cannot be tolerated by a growing number of people, and the industry needs to provide everyone with accurate and up-to-date information. If I am reading the gist of the lawsuit right, that is all the family was initially looking for.

While that is what the lawyer implies, that doesnt mean it accureatly explains what happenned. While it may be that a filler wasnt included on an ingredient list, or a 'natural flavor' contained a gluten ingredient which McD's didnt catch, I suspect what really happenned was CC, but the lawyer is accusing McD's of lying about ingredients, because you cant sue for CC. I could be wrong, but thats what lawyers do, exagerate to the point of dishonesty to try to convince a judge and some jurors to give a big award, the majority of which will go to . . .the lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lisa Mentor

"From my perspective, getting them to give us completely accurate information 100% of the time so we can make our own informed decisions is the only way we can both live in a world obsessed with things we cannot eat and still be responsible for making safe and healthy choices for ourselves."

.............

Sure, Sandi, that would be great in a perfect world. But the risk is still ours.

It is similar to recommending a certain gluten free product here on this site. We can recommend and give our testimony regarding a product, but in the end it is our responsibility to make sure what we consume is safe for us and our family. In this case, it's an educated choice.

If, indeed those fries were gluten free as listed previously on their website ( and I believe that they are/were) the child got sick from cross contamination. That is our risk to assume when eating out. This as well, is an educated choice.

This is my personal belief. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tarnalberry Community Regular
If I am reading this right, what McDonald's website says now is not what it said when the family checked. If I am reading this right, the family did look, and believed what was on the website. If the information was wrong, and the family ate there based on the information on the website, then McDonald's is at least partly responsible for whatever happened as a result of eating food the family was possibly mislead into believing was safe but apparently was not.

The ingredient in question has been tested as being gluten-free. Of course, as with any laboratory test, there is a limit to how small a quantity can be detected, but that quantity is lower than what has been studied as being triggering to celiacs. We all know that plenty of people suspect/know that they react to less than that, but we have to be intelligent about the fact that anything we don't prepare ourselves from scratch has a risk. "Trust" is rather relative here, and there is NO SUCH THING as truly, 100%, trusting a restaurant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
home-based-mom Contributor

Everyone makes good points. The responsibility is ultimately our own, and my personal rule of thumb is, when it doubt, don't.

The news article (never unbiased, imho) doesn't tell us how long since the child had been diagnosed. Who cares? The longer since diagnosis, the longer the family would have had to learn who to trust and who not to trust. The longer they would have had to do more research about things like cc, etc. The longer they would have had to stumble upon this board, where now they can only lurk and not comment (at least about THAT!) because of the lawsuit. Heck, maybe they are lurking even now! :ph34r:

But I digress. Yes, it is the attorney's job to slant all opinions in favor of his client. If he is good enough, he can win almost any case, even if maybe he shouldn't.

Would I have sued in a similar situation? No. The information doesn't appear to be deliberately wrong or misleading. There appears to be no sign of callous neglect. No one died, or suffered life-ling impairement from this one incident. The error has been corrected.

Unfortunately, we do live in a law-suit happy environment, and the family chose this route. Personally I think the goal of having the company post accurate information could have been accomplished better by first contacting them. If that didn't work, write a letter to the local newspaper and/or an internal industry publication. Call a local TV station - negative publicity can go a long ways towards getting something done and need not involve even one lawyer. Legal action should be the last resort, not the first one.

Would I chance eating the fries. I don't think so! :blink::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buffettbride Enthusiast

The fundamental problem I have with a lawsuit like this, is I fear it will lead to all restaurants not providing allergen-friendly listings and complete lack of accomodation for people with food "disabilities." There is nothing that requires restaurants to provide such dining options and I'm certain there is no way to guarantee a particular dining experience will be safe. It is ALWAYS a risk to eat out no matter how safe the menu looks or how safe you think the people serving you will be.

However, that said, if a restaurant chooses to provide allergen (intolerance)-friendly options, then they better know it is more than just the ingredients that require precaution.

That said, no way in h-e-double hockey stix would I let my daughter have McFries or ANYTHING from that gluten disaster waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morrisun Newbie
"Trust" is rather relative here, and there is NO SUCH THING as truly, 100%, trusting a restaurant.

That's so true and it goes for everyone, not just people with Celiac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
phakephur Apprentice

I love how these parents are so concerned about their children's diet/health and then they take them to McDonald's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kbtoyssni Contributor
I love how these parents are so concerned about their children's diet/health and then they take them to McDonald's.

Good point! Let's look at the big picture here, folks! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Help Celiac.com:
    Donate

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):





    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-M):




  • Recent Activity

    1. - cristiana replied to Larzipan's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      16

      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

    2. - Julie Riordan replied to Julie Riordan's topic in Traveling with Celiac Disease
      3

      Any ideas for travelling

    3. - Nedast replied to Larzipan's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      16

      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

    4. - trents replied to SuzanneL's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      1

      Weak Positive Test

    5. - SuzanneL posted a topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      1

      Weak Positive Test


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      120,497
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Kim.cervone513
    Newest Member
    Kim.cervone513
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      120.2k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • cristiana
      Thank you for your post, @Nedast, and welcome to the forum. It is interesting to read of your experiences. Although I've not had TMJ, from time to time I have had a bit of mild pain in my jaw, sharp stabbing pains and tingling in my face which appears to have been caused by issues with my trigeminal nerve.  I read that sometimes a damaged trigeminal nerve in coeliacs can heal after adopting a gluten free diet.  I try to keep out of cold winds or wear a scarf over my face when it is cold and windy, those conditions tend to be my 'trigger' but I do think that staying clear of gluten has helped.  Also, sleeping with a rolled up towel under my neck is a tip I picked up online, again, that seems to bring benefits. Thank you again for your input - living with this sort of pain can be very hard, so it is good to be able to share advice.
    • Julie Riordan
      I am going to France in two weeks and then to Portugal in May   Thanks for your reply 
    • Nedast
      I made an account just to reply to this topic. My story resembles yours in so many ways that it is truly amazing. I also suddenly became lactose intolerant, went a little under 10 years attributing all my symtoms to different body parts, never thinking it was something systemic until much later. I had the same mental problems - anxiety, depression, fatigue, etc. In fact, the only real difference in our story is that I was never formally diagnosed. When I discovered that my myriad symtoms, that had been continuous and worsening for years, all rapidly subsided upon cessation of consuming gluten, I immediately took it upon myself to cut gluten out of my diet completely. I live in America, and had lost my health insurance within the year prior to my discovery, so I could not get tested, and I will never willingly or knowingly consume gluten again, which I would have to do in order to get tested now that I have insurance again. But that is not the point of this reply. I also had extreme TMJ pain that began within months of getting my wisdom teeth out at - you guessed it - 17 years old. I was in and out of doctors for my various symptoms for about 5 years before I gave up, but during that time I had also kept getting reffered to different kinds of doctors that had their own, different solutions to my TMJ issue, an issue which I only recently discovered was related to my other symptoms. I began with physical therapy, and the physical therapist eventually broke down at me after many months, raising her voice at me and saying that there was nothing she could do for me. After that saga, I saw a plastic surgeon at the request of my GP, who he knew personally. This palstic surgeon began using botox injections to stop my spasming jaw muscles, and he managed to get it covered by my insurace in 2011, which was harder to do back then. This helped the pain tremendously, but did not solve the underlying problem, and I had to get repeat injections every three months. After a couple of years, this began to lose effectiveness, and I needed treatments more often than my insurance would cover. The surgeon did a scan on the joint and saw slight damage to the tissues. He then got approved by insurance to do a small surgery on the massseter (jaw) muscle - making an incision, and then splicing tissue into the muscle to stop the spasming. It worked amazingly, but about three months later it had stopped working. I was on the verge of seeing the top oral surgeon in our city, but instead of operating on me, he referred me to a unique group of dentists who focus on the TMJ and its biomechanical relationship to teeth occlusion (i.e. how the teeth fit together). This is what your dentist did, and what he did to you was boderline if not outright malpractice. There is a dental field that specializes in doing this kind of dental work, and it takes many years of extra schooling (and a lot of money invested into education) to be able to modify teeth occusion in this manner. Just based on the way you describe your dentist doing this, I can tell he was not qualified to do this to you. Dentists who are qualified and engage in this practice take many measurments of your head, mouth, teeth, etc., they take laboratory molds of your teeth, and they then make a complete, life-size model of your skull and teeth to help them guide their work on you. They then have a lab construct, and give you what is called a "bite splint." It looks and feels like a retainer, but its function is entirely different. This is essentially a literal splint for the TMJ that situates on the teeth. The splint is progressively modified once or twice per week, over several months, in order to slowly move the joint to its correct position. The muscles spasm less, stress is taken off the joint, as the joint slowly moves back into its proper position. The pain reduces each month, each week, sometimes even each day you go in for a visit. The joint has to be moved in this manner with the splint BEFORE the modification to the teeth begins. They then add to your tooth structure with small bits of composite, to keep the joint in its proper place after it has been sucessfully repositioned. Subtracting from your teeth, by grinding down bits of your natural tooth structure, is done very conservatively, if they have to do it at all. This process worked for me - after six months, my face, jaw, neck all felt normal, and I had no more pain - a feeling I had not had in a long time. It also made my face look better. I had not realized the true extent that the spasming muscles and the joint derangement had effected the shape of my face. The pain began to return after a few months, but nowhere near where it had been before. This immense reduction in pain lasted for a little over two years. The treatment still ultimately failed, but it is not their fault, and it is still the treatment that has given me the most relief to this day. Later on, I even went about three years with very, very good pain reduction, before the joint severely destabilized again. This field of dentistry is the last line treatment for TMJ issues before oral surgery on the TMJ. There aren't as many denists around who practice this anymore, and the practice is currently shrinking due to dentists opting for less espensive, additional educations in things like professional whitening, which have a broader marketability. Getting this treatment is also very expensive if not covered by insurance (in America at least). My first time was covered by insurance, second time was not, though the dentist took pity on me due to the nature of my case and charged like a quarter of usual pricing. Most cases seen by these dentists are complete successes, and the patient never has to come back again. But occasionally they get a case that is not a success, and I was one of those cases. A little over a year ago, I began seeing the second dentist who keeps my TMJ stable in this manner. The first dentist retired, and then died sadly. A shame too, because he was a truly amazing, knowledgable guy who really wanted to help people. The new dentist began to get suspicious when my joint failed to stay stable after I was finished with the bite splint and his modifications, so he did another scan on me. This is ten years after the first scan (remember, I said the surgeon saw "slight" damage to the tissue on the first scan). This new scan revealed that I now no longer have cartilage in the joint, on both sides - complete degeneration of the soft tissues and some damage to the bone. The dentist sat me down and had a talk with me after these results came in, and said that when he sees damage like this in cases like mine, that the damage to the joint is most likely autoimmune, and that, in his experinece, it is usually autoimmune. He has sent patients with cases like mine to Mayo Clinic. He said he will continue to see me as long as the treatment continues to offer me relief, but also said that I will probably have to see a dentist for this type of treatment for the rest of my life. He is not currently recommending surgery due to my young age and the fact that the treatment he provides manages my symptoms pretty well. I still see this dentist today, and probably will see this kind of dental specialist for the rest of my life, since they have helped with this issue the most. I did not inform him that I am 100% sure that I have celiac disease (due to my complete symptom remission upon gluten cessation). I didn't inform him because I thought it would be inappropriate due to not having a formal diagnosis. I was disappointed, because I had believed I had caught it BEFORE it had done permanent damage to my body. I had never suspected that my TMJ issues may be related to my other symptoms, and that the damage would end up complete and permanent. Luckily, I caught it about 6 months after my other joints started hurting, and they stopped hurting right after I went gluten free, and haven't hurt since. I of course did the necessary research after the results of the second scan, and found out that the TMJ is the most commonly involved joint in autoimmune disease of the intestines, and if mutliple joints are effected, it is usually the first one effected. This makes complete sense, since the TMJ is the most closely related joint to the intestines, and literally controls the opening that allows food passage into your intestines. I am here to tell you, that if anyone says there is no potential relationship between TMJ issues and celiac disease, they are absolutely wrong. Just google TMJ and Celiac disease, and read the scientific articles you find. Research on issues regarding the TMJ is relatively sparse, but you will find the association you're looking for validated.
    • trents
      Welcome to the forum, @SuzanneL! Which tTG was that? tTG-IGA? tTG-IGG? Were there other celiac antibody tests run from that blood draw? Was total IGA measured? By some chance were you already cutting back on gluten by the time the blood draw was taken or just not eating much? For the celiac antibody tests to be accurate a person needs to be eating about 10g of gluten daily which is about 4-6 pieces of bread.
    • SuzanneL
      I've recently received a weak positive tTG, 6. For about six years, I've been sick almost everyday. I was told it was just my IBS. I have constant nausea. Sometimes after I eat, I have sharp, upper pain in my abdomen. I sometimes feel or vomit (bile) after eating. The doctor wanted me to try a stronger anti acid before doing an endoscopy. I'm just curious if these symptoms are pointing towards Celiac Disease? 
×
×
  • Create New...